From: WEWoodsMPH
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:57:49 EDT
Subject: Hawaii- STM98 fined - Australian Money still in Hawaii political coffer
Aloha Folks,
Just completed the May meeting of the Campaign Spending Commission. First
action following adoption of minutes of 3-10-98 was the "making of a final
determination on Docket #98-01 - Woods vs. STM[98] and McDonald.
This was the very first complaint filed which had earlier been process as a
preliminary determination for cause. In the action taken today STM[98] was
administratively fined $200.00 for accepting a contribution of foreign funds
from the Australian Consulate General. Although the Australian Consul General
Colin McDonald sent a communication to the CSC stating the did not intend to
make any political contribution and wanted their funds returned to them, there
was no action by the CSC to return their money. Thus as it stands STM[98]
still has $200. of funds contributed by a foreign country. Their fine is for
accepting it, but nothing to indicate the illegal funds must be returned to
the foreign country.
I will be sending a letter to Mr. McDonald and other Australian government
bodies as necessary to ask if they are going to request/demand their money to
be returned. I would like to request any information that you might know of
that would direct me to the right authorities in this matter. If you would
like to help pursue this matter, please use this information as necessary.
Please do send me a copy of all materials, communications, and responses
related to this issue so that I may know what else is being pursued.
During the decision-making on this sanction, I specifically asked the
commission is the decision would cover return of any money to the foreign
source. They said no. Previous report on this matter indicated that the
foreign consulate's lack of knowledge, intent, misleading or misrepresented
solicitation was not an issue under CSC rules and statutes. This seemed to
imply that the Australian Consulate General would have to take that matter up
directly with other authorities or STM98 as necessary.
A significant report on the other complaints was prepared by CSC staff to the
Commission. I will report on the most significant at this time, but will
condense whole report in future news bulletins on this matter. However, the
most important overall position is that the staff recommend that CSC request a
State Attorney General opinion on the issue of Hawaii's legal contribution cap
of $1,000. A federal supreme court decision regarding a ballot issue in
California determined a cap of $250. there for a ballot issue was
unconstitutional. The CSC cannot determine one of their laws or rules to be
unconstitutional, so they adopted the recommendation to request an opinion
from AG before further action is taken on any of the remaining complaints and
formal investigation.
Here again, the AG is a central focal point of the situation. Although there
are many other issues for review, non-action until the opinion is received
means that the CSC portion of the investigation is on hold.
Importantly, if the opinion comes down that the law is in opinion of AG
unconstitutional it would mean the CSC would be able to take a position there
are no caps regarding ballot issue solicitations. This is big time bad if the
caps are removed. Those with money could unduly influence a ballot issue.
Do good
William E. Woods, MPH